The furor over Texas' sanctuary cities bill has revived an old debate. Most in Texas agree that we need stronger border control, but we're still arguing over what our proper response should be to those who have crossed the border illegally and made a home here. In particular, what do we owe the young children they brought along?

Thirty-five years ago this week, a case involving the Tyler Independent School District put this question squarely before the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices, closely split along ideological grounds, ruled 5-4 that every person in America, whether here legally or not, is covered by the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. From that starting point, the justices reasoned that a Texas statute denying a free public education to children who were in the country illegally violated those ironclad guarantees.

The Supreme Court embraced that rationale and upheld Justice's ruling. The dissenters, including Chief Justice Warren Burger, said the court was intruding on a decision best left to lawmakers. But even Burger, a conservative appointed by President Richard Nixon, wrote that he agreed that "it is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children — including illegal aliens — of an elementary education."

Those convictions were tested many years later, when a group of lawmakers, including Domingo Garcia from Dallas, introduced a bill in the 2001 Texas Legislature to provide in-state college tuition for applicants who lived in Texas, even if they had been brought here illegally. Until then, the practice had been to consider undocumented applicants residents of their homelands, no matter how many years they had lived in Texas.

That bill passed in a political atmosphere that is wholly unrecognizable now. Just one House member voted against the DREAM Act; three senators opposed it. Gov. Rick Perry not only signed it, but defended the bill as both humane and smart for years, even as he ran for president in 2012 and 2016.

As we mark the 35th anniversary of the Plyler decision, let's recall the sane and sage perspective from conservatives who have over the years seen value in Texas extending its hand to children living here, no matter their immigration status.

Plyler vs. Doe (1982)

* Forty years ago, Tyler Independent School District officials began charging $1,000 in tuition to students who could not prove they were in the country legally.

* The tuition plan had followed a Texas statute that had stopped counting undocumented students for purposes of per-pupil school funding, and authorized districts to either exclude such students from their classrooms or charge them tuition.

* Parents of young students sued, and courts at the district, appellate and Supreme Court level all ruled in their favor. The holding: The 14th Amendment applies equally to all people in the nation, no matter their legal status.

* The Supreme Court relied on two facts in coming to its conclusion. One, it noted that Texas had failed to show that teaching undocumented children would harm or dilute the education of other students. And it noted that the Reagan administration's emphasis was on preventing new illegal immigration, rather than deporting those who were already here, making it likely that many of the children would remain in the country for years to come.

What they said:

"We have neither the resources, the capability, nor the motivation to uproot and deport millions of illegal aliens, many of whom have become, in effect, members of the community. By granting limited legal status to the productive and law-abiding members of this shadow population, we will recognize reality and devote our enforcement resources to deterring future illegal arrivals." Attorney General William French Smith, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, to Congress in 1981, as cited in the Plyler case.